GBB:Exactly. The reason we have the proliferation of weapons is because of the late-20th Century application of grammar to a late-18th Century document.

I am pretty sure that the supreme court would (and have) disagreed with you here. One of the main findings of Heller was that the prefatory clause does not limit the operative clause. It only states a reasoning.

Pokey.Clyde:ghare: 20 dead 6-and-7-year-olds say George Will is full of shiat.

And I say you are full of shiat. Just what kind of laws would have stopped that dumbass from killing his mother and stealing guns from her?

The law that would have made the rifle illegal.

And before you bash me as a liberal nut - I'm ex-military, grew up hunting, and I don't want to take all of your guns away. What I do want if for people to remember why the second amendment exists - and hint, it's not so you can own as many of whatever kind of weapon you want.

You think you need protection from your government? Fine. Own a gun - but if and only if you meet certain conditions - including mental stability (and again, I'm not bashing people with mental illness, but if you have an untreated mentally ill person in your house, who has access to the weapons no gun for you).

And I'm sorry - but a semi-automatic rifle has but one purpose - killing people. Large magazines have one purpose - killing more people before reloading. Neither should be legal to own without some very, very rigorous hoops. I'd rather they weren't legal at all, but I rather have a reasonable discussion that has movement from both sides than get nothing done because people want to draw a line in the sand.

It should be harder to get a gun that it is to get a driver's license. And the basic rules of ownership should meet a national standard - so that moving from state to state doesn't circumvent rules. A state can tighten the base rules, but they cannot loosen them.

Dimensio:Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

Paul Baumer:Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

Dimensio:rohar: PartTimeBuddha: cameroncrazy1984: Tell that to the UK, a country that hasn't had a mass shooting since Dunblane, after which they enacted the 1997 Firearms act.

Exactly. The laws were tightened.

And it did annoy a lot of gun enthusiasts.

Total handgun offenses in the UK in 1909 was 1983 incidents. In 2010 it was 3105. Yup, that turned the tide right there.

"Handgun offenses" may include possession of a firearm following the total prohibition upon civilian ownership of them. Whether this influences rates, I cannot say. Population increases may also account for some of the increase.

When I am informed that prohibiting civilian handgun ownership in the United Kingdom reduced rates of crime, I request data regarding homicide and violent crime rates before and after the implementation of the prohibition.

The claim may be accurate, but thus far no data has been presented.

I would generally agree, but there's a couple of problems with getting anything statistaclly correct on this subject.

First, the UK changed their reporting methodology at the same time the law was enacted. Metrics before != metrics after. Moreover, their total offences includes airsoft guns and realistic inoperative toy guns so that throws it off dramatically. Here's total.

Now, if anyone could come up with real gun crime statistics over that period of time, I'd appreciate it no end. Without that though, any argument of the affect of the passage of this law is purely speculation.

There are countries with low gun ownership and low violent crime.There are countries with low gun ownership and high violent crime.There are countries with high gun ownership and low violent crime.There are NO countries with high gun ownership and high violent crime.

Paul Baumer:Dimensio: thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.

Some additional perspective:

Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with any model of rifle: 2.55%.Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with knives: 13.4%Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with unarmed attacks: 5.75%.

Clearly, prohibiting civilian access to AR-15 style rifles will substantially reduce rates of violent crime. Additionally, criminals and mentally unstable individuals would not select a different, legally available, model of firearm were their first choice of rifle not legally available.

Say, what were the number of murders with handguns? Seem to be missing from your list. Must have been an oversight. And in your view, any solution that doesn't 100% make everything better isn't worth doing apparently, I presume?

I made no claim regarding murders with handguns. I am aware that handguns are the most common tool for murder, being used in 49.1% of them in 2011.

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

1. Require all prospective gun owners to pass a class about gun safety. Require x amount of hours of practice in the shooting range for the type of weapon being purchased (it can be categorized broadly, but if you want to buy a handgun, you need to learn how to use a handgun). Everyone wanting any gun needs to pass a background check. You can only buy one gun at a time, and background checks are only good for one year.

2. Require all guns be registered every year at the gun owner's expense, just like a car or boat.

3. Require gun insurance in case your gun is used in a crime. The insurance will go to the victims of crimes committed with your gun. It would be paid when you register your gun so there's no way to get out of paying for it.

4. Require the gun owner to keep current registration and insurance information with the gun at all times. If you are unable to present the paperwork to the authorities on demand, all your weapons are seized, even the ones you DO have paperwork for. You have 14 days to present to the authorities the proper paperwork, and after paying a fine, you can get your guns back. A second offense results in you losing your guns permanently. You are banned for life from owning guns, because clearly you are not responsible enough to own them.

5. If your gun is lost or stolen, you have 24 hours from the time of discovery to report it missing. If you fail to report the weapon missing, you will be fined $1000 for EACH crime committed with the gun.

6. It is a felony to own a gun not registered to you. (This is different than having expired registration; this is never having registered the gun in your name at all.)

7. If your gun is involved in an accidental shooting (like the dad who shot his son outside the gun shop a couple weeks ago) your guns are seized and you are banned from owning guns permanently. Clearly you are not responsible enough to keep guns safe.

Our nation is all about personal responsibility. You want to own guns? Go for it. But if you fail to own them responsibly, you will lose your guns. End of story. If you are not a responsible citizen, you do not get to own guns.

Paul Baumer:Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

And you know this how?

Because deaths caused by ANY rifles in a given year are far and away outstripped by people who get beaten to death. They account for less than 2% of all murders.

Dimensio:Paul Baumer: Dimensio: thornhill: For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.

Some additional perspective:

Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with any model of rifle: 2.55%.Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with knives: 13.4%Percentage of murders committed in 2011 with unarmed attacks: 5.75%.

Clearly, prohibiting civilian access to AR-15 style rifles will substantially reduce rates of violent crime. Additionally, criminals and mentally unstable individuals would not select a different, legally available, model of firearm were their first choice of rifle not legally available.

Say, what were the number of murders with handguns? Seem to be missing from your list. Must have been an oversight. And in your view, any solution that doesn't 100% make everything better isn't worth doing apparently, I presume?

I made no claim regarding murders with handguns. I am aware that handguns are the most common tool for murder, being used in 49.1% of them in 2011.

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

Here's some evidence - no other country allows the amount of these weapons to be privately held that we do, both per capita and in total, and we have more incidents with them than any other country in the world.

Guns are a straw man. If you had a once of integrity you would be in the streets trying to end the sale of cigarettes (400,000 deaths a year) vehicles (30,000 deaths a year) and alcohol (40,000 deaths a year)

Your arguments are bad.Vehicles: Not designed to kill people. Most deaths are accidental in some form.Alcohol: Not designed to kill people. Helps people make bad decisions. Much like with vehicles, I would imagine most deaths are accidental.Cigarettes: This affects one person, who chooses to slowly kill themselves. Notice that the government is cracking down on public cigarette usage? This is because cigarettes have the propensity to hurt multiple people.

I'm not saying mental health is not a factor. It most definitely is. The United States needs to get completely serious about mental health care. Not just reactive, but proactive. I also feel that too much emphasis is placed on prescription drugs for dealing with mental health issues.

Also, about the UK: 1989- 1983 incidents. This is 0.004% of the population at that time.2010 - 3105. This is 0.005% of the 2010 pop.https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_ p op_totl&idim=country:GBR&dl=en&hl=en&q=uk%20population

Of course, my assumption is that each incident involves a unique perp, and that there was no international contamination.

Stop telling me that gun control does absolutely nothing. Both mental health care AND gun control are needed.

Gun control advocates consistently argue for compromise when they ask for discussion. For those of you who are asking for discussion and compromise, who aren't calling for pie-in-the-sky schemes and painting all gun owners with the same NRA tea party conservative brush, I ask this:

What are gun control advocates willing to put on the table when it comes to this compromise we hear all the time?

llachlan:And I'm sorry - but a semi-automatic rifle has but one purpose - killing people.

Is that the reason that a chartered program of the federal government of the United States of America, created by Congress, sells a semi-automatic rifle model to civilians as part of the "Civilian Marksmanship Program"? Is that the reason that rifles are less commonly utilized to commit murder than are unarmed attacks?

thornhill:For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.

OH GOD NO, IT'S SCARY AND BLACK!

Nevermind the fact that its .223 ammunition is substantially less deadly to humans than a common deer rifle (it was chosen for military service partly because merely wounding an enemy is more effective than killing him, since you also tie up a medic to treat his wounds), or that it's only capable of single-shot fire. No, it's a black, "military-style" (scary-looking) gun and must therefore be SUPER-DUPER DEADLY!

Just look at that scope! It's obviously there so a mad gunman can use it to gaze dispassionately into your children's eyes as he kills them from miles away.

Paul Baumer:Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

And you know this how?

Rifles in general are rarely criminally misused. AR-15 pattern rifles are a smaller subset of rifles.

CT: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, murders his mother and uses her legally purchased guns to kill lots of people.

China: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, picks up a knife and stabs a lot of people.

Auroa: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

VTech: A mentally unstable person, whom did not receive the proper care, legally obtains weapons that he would not have been able to get if he received the proper care kills lots of people.

I could keep doing this, but I' m sure you see the common thread. If the goal of society, any society, is stop these kinds of acts then dealing with the common thread of mental health would be far more effective then banning guns.

So I ask again. Do you want to solve the problem or further an agenda?

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.

Paul Baumer:Here's some evidence - no other country allows the amount of these weapons to be privately held that we do, both per capita and in total, and we have more incidents with them than any other country in the world.

Are you saying that incidents with a different model of rifle are acceptable? Are you attempting to reduce rates of violent crime, or are you attempting to reduce rates of violent crime committed with one specific type of rifle?

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.

Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.

thornhill:For those who are unaware what exactly a Bushmaster Model .223 is:

[static2.businessinsider.com image 400x300]

Clearly banning the ownership of guns like this will result in the US becoming a dictatorship.

It looks scary, doesn't it.What you don't realize is there is no functional difference between that rifle and this one.

/This was the style of rifle used in the 2011 Norway massacre./This argument is like the government nitpicking first amendment rights by banning the kind of PC you use to browse the internet./I believe you'll find the application of arbitrary, controlling, or unjust laws under the definition of tyranny.

iq_in_binary:Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: Dimensio: Paul Baumer: . A 30 round mag equipped AR-15 that can pop off 2-3 rounds per second ain't for shootin' deeer, no matter how hard Louie stomps his feet and says "nooo that's just a rifle".

You are correct; an AR-15 is better suited for wild hogs or for coyotes, as the round is too underpowered for deer hunting.

And clearly the only design capable of stopping these menaces to society. Their restriction would cause a tableau that would make Night Of The Lepus look pale in comparison,

On the contrary: prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles would likely have absolutely no measurable effect upon any meaningful statistic, including statistics of violent crime given the rarity of criminal misuse of any rifle model.

And you know this how?

Because deaths caused by ANY rifles in a given year are far and away outstripped by people who get beaten to death. They account for less than 2% of all murders.

one, successful reduction of 2% of murders would mean a lot more people walking around. Two, that fella could physically not have beaten that many people to death - his choice greatly improved his efficiency, three, frequency does not a equal a reason to make something legal - there probably aren't that many spitting cobra deaths, and yet we are ok with them being regulated. Reductio ad absurdem arguments are all there are for these weapons - but I grant you they seem to work just fine on the 25% or so of voters you need to keep it in place. Lok I have owned and operated several of these things - I still have a Saiga 12. I'd be perfectly willing to accept annual license renewal, 5 shot magazine limitation, 5 year mental health checks, and required home safety features that must be produced on demand - like they do in other countries that allow civilian ownership but don't seem to have the massacre problem.

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.

Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.

Let's just ignore that part...

Apparently three of the adults killed confronted the Adam Lanza. It's very possible if he'd been forced to reload one of them could have taken him down. In fact, it's happened before (see: Jared Loughner).

Outrageous Muff:Let's be honest here. No gun law on the books or one proposed aside from physically collecting every gun in the nation would have kept this guy from killing those kids. It's as simple as that.

However a fully-funded, well run national mental health program that begins and continues treatment for people like the shooter would have.

One of these things fixes the problem of not only mass murders, but fixes a lot of violence done by the mental unstable. The other furthers a political agenda.

And yet, both are gun laws and rate of killings are unique in the industrialized world.

Dimensio:Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.

That's not the point. Crack down on all of them.

Why are you people so comfortable with the idea that any idiot can walk into a store and buy a firearm? At the very least, you should ban all handguns. Let people who want to go kill a deer kill a deer, but get rid of the idiots waving handguns around. Handguns are the weapon involved in the majority of homicides in the United States, and there is no credible use for them besides killing people.

Mike Chewbacca:1. Require all prospective gun owners to pass a class about gun safety. Require x amount of hours of practice in the shooting range for the type of weapon being purchased (it can be categorized broadly, but if you want to buy a handgun, you need to learn how to use a handgun). Everyone wanting any gun needs to pass a background check. You can only buy one gun at a time, and background checks are only good for one year.

2. Require all guns be registered every year at the gun owner's expense, just like a car or boat.

3. Require gun insurance in case your gun is used in a crime. The insurance will go to the victims of crimes committed with your gun. It would be paid when you register your gun so there's no way to get out of paying for it.

4. Require the gun owner to keep current registration and insurance information with the gun at all times. If you are unable to present the paperwork to the authorities on demand, all your weapons are seized, even the ones you DO have paperwork for. You have 14 days to present to the authorities the proper paperwork, and after paying a fine, you can get your guns back. A second offense results in you losing your guns permanently. You are banned for life from owning guns, because clearly you are not responsible enough to own them.

5. If your gun is lost or stolen, you have 24 hours from the time of discovery to report it missing. If you fail to report the weapon missing, you will be fined $1000 for EACH crime committed with the gun.

6. It is a felony to own a gun not registered to you. (This is different than having expired registration; this is never having registered the gun in your name at all.)

7. If your gun is involved in an accidental shooting (like the dad who shot his son outside the gun shop a couple weeks ago) your guns are seized and you are banned from owning guns permanently. Clearly you are not responsible enough to keep guns safe.

Our nation is all about personal responsibility. You want to own guns? Go for it. B ...

Purely punitive, and quite frankly never going to happen. Be realistic. Half of what you put forward in 1 is already taken care of by the NICS. 2 is unconstitutional. 3 is something even the insurance companies would laugh you out of the room for. 4 is half taken care of by my proposal to apply NFA to all new semi-autos and all existing semi-autos over a caliber threshold (.380 ACP for Pistols, .30 Carbine for Rifles, 4-10 for Shotguns), basically everything but the "insurance." 5 has been tried and is laughably stupid for many reasons. 6 is already taken care of by my proposal. 7 has been tried, but can only be implemented if changed to reflect doing harm. Waaaay too much abuse to be had with that one otherwise, a cop could arrest everybody at an indoor shooting range citing "Accidental Discharges" by quietly calling a cease fire and then waiting for someone who didn't hear to keep firing, and if you don't think they'd try that one, you're naive.

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.

Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.

If even one of those children were still alive because Lanza was unable to access a weapon with the same rate of fire, would you consider that a benefit?

Outrageous Muff:Let's be honest here. No gun law on the books or one proposed aside from physically collecting every gun in the nation would have kept this guy from killing those kids. It's as simple as that.

However a fully-funded, well run national mental health program that begins and continues treatment for people like the shooter would have.

One of these things fixes the problem of not only mass murders, but fixes a lot of violence done by the mental unstable. The other furthers a political agenda.

How about we do both? Because guns kill lots of people every day, and the murderers are usually NOT mentally unstable.

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.

Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.

Let's just ignore that part...

Apparently three of the adults killed confronted the Adam Lanza. It's very possible if he'd been forced to reload one of them could have taken him down. In fact, it's happened before (see: Jared Loughner).

An individual who claims all firearm owners to be "cowardly" and "barbaric" suffers from irrational hatred.

The AR-15 is not the only firearm from which multiple rounds may be fired without reloading. In fact, a substantial percentage of civilian-marketed firearms feature such an ability.

Now, if anyone could come up with real gun crime statistics over that period of time, I'd appreciate it no end. Without that though, any argument of the affect of the passage of this law is purely speculation.

I am not stating only that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 pattern rifles will not "100% make everything better"; I am stating that no evidence suggests that such a prohibition would serve any benefit at all. Criminally inclined individuals and mentally unstable individuals would select a different rifle model if the AR-15 were not legally available.

20 more living first graders in Connecticut wiould be a very tangible benefit.

Please set aside your irrational hatred of all firearm owners for a moment and demonstrate that they would have been alive had the shooter used a different model of rifle or a different class of firearm.

If even one of those children were still alive because Lanza was unable to access a weapon with the same rate of fire, would you consider that a benefit?

Yes. When you can demonstrate that prohibiting civilian ownership of AR-15 style rifles would have accomplished exactly that goal, your argument will be meaningful.